Higgs Mechanism Loophole and Emergent Space formulation for Gravity

What we already know from the success of the Standard Model:

1) The Higgs mechanism is the foundation of the Standard Model of particle physics.

2) The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field with an energy of 125 GeV. It is a scalar particle (the only one ever discovered) with spin = 1. It decays in about a zeptosecond into two high energy photons (predominant mechanism in the LHC), or into two tau mesons (quarks and gluons).

3) Matter derives some of its inertial mass by the acceleration (slowing down) of energy by the Higgs mechanism for electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, W and Z bosons.

Higgs loophole gravity:

1) Provides that the Higgs mechanism is not directly responsible for gravitational mass, and so is consistent with the Standard Model.

2) Is able to reconcile the principle of equivalence with inertial mass derived of the Higgs mechanism with gravitational attraction between them. We have also identified a key minor flaw in PE used for GR which we are working to resolve in order to implement the full working theory.

3) Explains the disparity of magnitudes of gravity vs. other forces while leaving conservation of energy intact. This is something that for whatever reason, the SM ignores in the case of the Higgs mechanism -- a symmetry that should be there is missing primarily because the SM is not a theory about vacuum energy.

4) Is consistent with fluid dynamics math of General Relativity. No other proposed mechanism for gravity can do what a bosonic fluid like the Higgs field can do. Warped rubber sheets for GR will have to go. Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time, move or burrow right through gravitating bodies after this interaction, impeded only by the matter to which it continuously imparts inertial mass.

5) It is the "continuity" part of the Higgs interaction which has escaped attention of particle physicists, mainly because unitarity and probability calculations have replaced the central role of time in most of their calculations.

6) Higgs loophole gravity is consistent with the observation that gravitation must work exactly the same way for matter as it does for antimatter. This observation was confirmed after the 1987 supernova event. Both neutrinos and antineutrinos from that event arrived at two different Earth based detectors simultaneously.

The theory may optionally explain why space and time are related as they are in relativity. This will require a complete theory of emergent space as its foundation. It took over 50 years for the Higgs mechanism to be confirmed. This part of the Higgs loophole theory (that only time and energy are fundamental), if true, will be contentious and will require major effort to confirm for decades. Relativity only hinted at this. Higgs Loophole will complete the task and make the theory complete.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for all of that. You are a gentleman.

It will take me awhile to put all of that into my hobby perspective, but I like the sound of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're welcome. I was about to return the compliment and add 'scholar', but these days, that is tantamount to an insult.

From the Urban Dictionary:
Google Scholar: an individual uses broadband internet to appear to be far more cultured, intelligent, and informed than anyone else-- due to their extensive knowledge of search engines.

But really not much different from the bad old days when scholars could not write or publish a single word that wasn't referenced to some other published academic work.

Very little of what is in the theory itself is actually original, come to think of it. Would references at the end help? BTW, I didn't see very many references mentioned in your Hobby-Model, but I am reading a few of your suggested reading list right now. Q is for Quantum is more than a little outdated now, but it is very good. I had no idea Oppenheimer was the one who actually used Dirac's equation to predict the positron.

Take care, and thanks for the feedback.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A good current reference that you personally are familiar with would be good, but not necessary as far as I'm concerned, since I am a Google Scholar when it comes right down to providing references

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I use Q is for Quantum as a historical reference because it lists everything alphabetically, and each entry is referenced to the page number of related material. You can follow a concept across its time of development, and get all of the appropriate names and dates. My copy is full of pencil notes to help remind me of the material I have looked at and where I left off. It isn't a book you would read cover to cover, but more like dance through to the music.

Thanks for looking at my hobby-model. The lack of references is intentional, and I don't call it a theory. It is layman level hypotheses and speculations, where I try to make everything work together to suit me personally, by hypothesizing connections that would fill the gaps in our observational evidence.

Not to bring any of it into your nice thread, but my model answers questions I have without resorting to something from nothing. So I usually ask theorists, what caused the initial expansion of the observable universe, and were there any preconditions to that cause or was it a first cause? I know your theory is not a TOE, and doesn't address those "imponderables", but if you don't have a scenario out of which comes our present observations, it might fill in some gaps in our understanding of what we observe, but it isn't satisfying enough for me with out the "how we got to here", lol.

 

Convinced. You are a gentleman and a scholar, the latter definitively not of the google variety.

On my honor, if anything my colleagues or I create which bear upon original ideas presented or expressed in the Hobby Model, I will make certain that it is properly attributed.

For anything I have written here concerning 'Higgs Loophole Gravity' to this date, I am expressly granting unlimited rights to co-opt it in whole or in part by anyone who reads it, subject only to such copyright limitations provided by our host, SciForums.

 

I can see it now. Send me a link if you write a scholarly paper, and in the footnotes you reference Quantum_Wave's Hobby-Model from Fringe section of SciForums. :toast:

Edit: An interesting update in this month's symmetry magazine:
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/art...next-for-higgs-boson-research?email_issue=545

 

See:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6036v1.pdf

The Higgs boson is basically an update of the the "masseon" of Feynman's early ideas related to Stochastic Electro Dynamics (SED) which pre-dates QED, also Feynman's idea. In this blending of classical with quantum ideas about inertia and gravity, the M from Netwon's laws is replaced with an expression involving vacuum energy interaction with matter. But instead of proposing a Higgs field for this, they keep referring to some sort of Lorentz-magnetic interaction as the cause of inertia, instead of interaction with both EM and elecroweak, the way Higgs does.

Higgs Loophole Gravity takes the idea further by proposing that time itself derives of that same vacuum energy interaction, as does the absolute speed limit c, because the only fundamental elements in the universe are energy and time. If your classical or quantum expression of any physical law in any theory contains references to either mass or space, then that theory is incomplete and biased by a predisposition of such models for maintaining the illusions of matter and space.

If not for association and distraction with the likes of Murray Gell-Mann, Feynman's ideas might have led to a more consistent theory of patrons 'quarks', or perhaps 'aces', which was George Zweig's name for quarks. This is the difference between a theory looking for a fundamental cause to what we observe, and someone interested in impressing things like "eightfold ways" onto nature where they neither belong nor fit. As it happens, QCD simply made a mockery of the idea that the bindings of physical reality had anything to do with mathematics, given 20 or so free parameters to work with. As an expedient like Newton's G factor (because Newton could not have imagined something like Higgs), I suppose that it worked, and moreover, there was much more work to be done than Feynman had years to do it in.

 

The research phase is nearly complete.

One colleague has opted out. And so it goes...

 

A thought experiment originally proposed (but not explained in sufficient detail) by John Wheeler explains exactly how Higgs indirect gravitation works:

A spaceship originally at rest with respect to a planet it blasts off from or accelerates so that its inertial reference frame is relativistic (not really necessary for this experiment; just to make it conform to Wheeler's specification).

The engines are cut off and a laser beam is bounced from plane mirrors on opposite sides of the inside of the fuselage. We know from Wheeler's analysis that the occupants of the spacecraft cannot perform any experiment inside the spacecraft that will determine any absolute velocity with respect to the planet they blasted off from, or any other inertial or non-inertial reference frame. Why is this, in detail?

The free electrons responsible for absorbing and reflecting the photons of the laser beam share the motion of the spaceship, and so cannot possibly reflect a photon without imparting a nudge that keeps the photon centered on the spot on the wall that is in the middle of the mirror on the opposite side. From the frame of reference of the planet the rocket blasted off from, this laser is not traveling in a straight line now, but follows the inertial trajectory of the rocket.

The same result works if the photon is reflected from the floor and ceiling of the spacecraft. Although the photon is Doppler shifted slightly red from the mirror on the ceiling, this effect is not noticed by the one on the floor, which if it could measure the beam energy, would blue shift it so that the spectrum of the beam would not appear shifted at all.

Here is what we have demonstrated:

Bosons including photons and Higgs can have inertia when they are in a bound state. The particulars of the bound states do not matter very much; whether the photon is bound in the energy of an electron cloud of the outer shell of an atom, or if it is bouncing between two mirrors, the effect is the same: bound energy may have inertia, just like matter, whenever and wherever it is, however briefly, bound.

The Higgs mechanism imparts inertial masses to electrons, W and Z bosons, quarks, and all of their antiparticles; basically everything in the atomic structure of matter except gluons (carrier of the strong nuclear force) and color charge. The Higgs boson slows down all of these particles, re-absorbing the energy of their respective motions into the energy of the Higgs field in the vacuum.

While the Higgs mechanism is occurring to these select particles of matter, the Higgs boson (NOT a 'virtual' particle) is BOUND. Just like the photon reflecting between two mirrors, it stays bound for as long as it is interacting with matter. In other words, energy is imparted from the matter subject to the Higgs mechanism and transferred to the vacuum itself. But the Higgs mechanism is a continuous one. As long as matter (ANY matter) is in the vicinity of the vacuum that has just interacted with mass, the nature of the bound energy transferred in this process assures that the next interaction will transfer energy from whatever inertial state the last interaction occurred to the state of motion of succeeding Higgs mechanism interactions with matter. The effect is the same as if everything were falling toward the geometric center of the gravitating mass.

It's not magic, but one of the things this does is to assure that every stone dropped in the vicinity of a large inertial mass will find its way to the exact geometric center of that mass without instruments, compass or protractor, or a mathematician's keen observation of the meanings of "round" or "geometric center".

That's EXACTLY the way gravity works. There is no question about it. Now get busy with the math and make some more predictions, only don't rely so heavily on geometry this time. God may love geometry, but your average stone knows nothing about it when choosing the direction it will fall. The Higgs field by itself has no inertia of any kind. Only the interaction of Higgs bosons with matter can produce an effect that assures that gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent.

 

A wonderful thing has happened.

While discussing Witten's first paper on topological sigma field with an actual theoretical physicist, we identified the basic problem.

http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104162092

Witten originally proposed this idea to overcome infinities in physics. While most people would not be clear about the means by which this occurs, we worked it out.

General Relativity uses relativity and math associated with fluid dynamics to arrive at a solution that while incomplete in terms of the cause of gravitation, is quite successful because it still includes time.

Witten's 'Topological sigma field' uses topology as applied to solids to describe a static curvature of space. Topology does not use time at all, and eliminating it turned out to be the means for removing dozens of instances of infinities that were keeping theoretical physics from going forward. This was an unfortunate choice, particularly when Higgs was discovered, because the Higgs mechanism is a CONTINUOUS process. It cannot be described by mathematics based on a static model.

The theoretical basis for the standard model is now being reworked to remedy this. I have little doubt, eventually this will lead to a more pervasive solution to dozens of problems left unsolved for the last 50 years.

I seem to have gained substantial credibility where it matters most.

At least, physics seems to be moving forward again now. It was literally as though time itself had stopped.

This was a fun obsession. The results will speak for themselves, but it may take a bit more time.

 

Does this mean that your black-eye avatar will change to a halo? The continuous process seems right, and the relationship between time and the continuous process would be reduced to the fact that time simply passes, perhaps? That would make a continuum of action and a continuum of time that are actually in sync.

 

It's not a "black eye". It's a scan of the ATLAS particle detector which I tried to make resemble one of Seven of Nine's Borg implants. I wanted something not suitable for a counterfeit driver's license or other ID. This one worked nicely. Somewhere there was a similar one of Chrisopher Lloyd as Doc Brown, both eyes as particle detectors. Too much.

Inspired by the LHC's retrofit of a new "retina" particle detector.

I'm satisfied things will work out and we'll get some great new physics out of this. Theoretical physicists are just the best. I guess I had somehow just forgotten that fact.

I've gone back to consulting with one of my remaining colleagues to try and fit his two bits in there somewhere mathematically. We already found the paper that was closest to his idea.

 

I don't think time is what most theoretical physicists think it is. In particular, I think Minkowski had it backwards. Space is subordinate to time. In a universe of energy events, space isn't even necessary. Since matter is energy, this is a distinct possibility. Convert all of the matter in the universe into energy, and space ceases to exist. Time would still exist, counted by the wave packets of photons, if nothing else. This is what makes me think space, like matter, is something that is emergent from the way energy interacts as a function of time.

 

And finally, here is why that vision is important. Edward Witten and company went to great lengths to rework the mathematics of the sigma field in terms that would not lead to mathematical infinities.

A MUCH better way to handle this is to make space subordinate to time. Infinities become zero. If you cannot produce a consistent model of a universe that consists of only energy and time (and no matter or space), then you have exactly zero chance of understanding things like the Higgs mechanism, which we now understand is a requirement for matter to exist in the first place. Since matter and energy are equivalent, and matter is only energy that is BOUND in a region of 'space', this idea actually makes more sense than the last 30 years or so of string theory applied to the Standard Model. The risk of not doing this is never developing anything that is close to a unified field theory.